Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

This would imply that shear cannot be used to execute a no-inch punch, which means you're talking about a different 'IT' than I am. Or would you say that the difference between an 'external' and an 'internal' punch lies in the fact that the 'internal' one propagates structural failure? If so, how do you explain that it's possible to demonstrate the difference between these two punches on a punching bag?

Would it? I think we really need to go back and consider what is special about the "no-inch punch" (that term drives me insane, really, it does!) and what, if anything, makes it applicable as what is "missing" from aikido.

Within certain modes of training, displaying power over short distances is actually much easier than displaying power where your own body moves over long distances. Why? Because the power in both cases is generated from the same source, but you are trying to carry it over a longer distance without it being dissipated within the tension of your own body. You don't want to get in the way of your own acceleration, which converts into work on something else once it impacts it.

The first thing you need to exert power over any distance competently is unity of movement across most joints in the body. If any of the joints activate at different times, power will simply bleed out of or be dissipated within the next joint in line. This movement needs to be extremely powerful and it needs to be extremely sudden, the goal being acceleration.

The next thing you will need is unity of relaxation, so that you can completely relax everything in your body, at the same time, so that you don't decelerate all that nice force you just generated, and that it will carry through your body over whatever distance to the target. Much the same with movement, any disunity or sluggishness and you've wasted some of your power.

The next thing, the part everyone loves, impact. At the exact moment of impact, your body, which was just completely limp only a fraction of a second ago, now must turn as solid as a rock with that same unity of power so that when you hit the target you don't flop off like a fish or give yourself whiplash from your own impact - neck and chattering teeth being strong considerations there. If you've got a rigid connection to the ground at this point, even better. You can then suddenly retract all that power, like with the initial explosion that generated the acceleration, and just let the target wobble around since it is no longer supported by your fist... Or you can just continue to push through it till it flies away.

This is probably by no means the only mode of generating power, but it is at least a way.

Now, take that same study of power, and reduce it to a starting scenario where you just happen to be touching the target already. Hell, there is basically nothing more to do than the initial explosion of power and letting it carry into the target. You've skipped all the skill and control required of those initial parts of just getting power to the target. It makes the concept of "short power" seem relatively mundane by comparison, no?

Now, would it help having a working model of how your body can be organized such that you know what structure to train into your body underlying all this power, without reference to another person, such that it would improve your ability to hit a heavy bag? Yes, yes it would.

A simple logistics formula leads to a beautiful, startling, yet familiarly complex pattern -- which is not simple at any scale.

It is a greater attraction -- though simple to state, it is impossible to exhaust -- IOW, the universe really does not care for simple patterns:

These things are skills and all interrelated (the ki skills). Together they form a coherent whole that is analogous to a "forest", for instance. Could you analyse each tree down to the xlyem and phloem and down to the molecules and atoms? Sure... but in that case you wouldn't be seeing the forest because of the trees. An apt analogy for your analyses, I think.

whoa! you lots still here discussing about IT? would have thought you are all gone practicing aikido or something.

you folks should go and experience hand-on stuffs with the internal folks (not at dimsum place!). if it's not your cup of tea then you only lost a bit of time and money, not a big deal. but if it opens up other things for you, then wouldn't that worthwhile? even experts go and learn from other experts.

No. Then we would have to play, and then drink, and then well, the night is about shot at that point ...

Quote:

Joep Schuurkes wrote:

This would imply that shear cannot be used to execute a no-inch punch, which means you're talking about a different 'IT' than I am. Or would you say that the difference between an 'external' and an 'internal' punch lies in the fact that the 'internal' one propagates structural failure? If so, how do you explain that it's possible to demonstrate the difference between these two punches on a punching bag?

Not at all. The stick-and-tape example is a planar shear. Though we can choose the plane in which to make the shear occur, it is initially at least in one plane defined by the sticks, for simplicity of demonstration. The body is more like a chain or whip -- very many short sticks bound flexibly. The good stuff thus comes in three dimensions with fluid movement and "odd" attributes like "loose" transfer of momentum --- i.e -- wholly without any compressive "pushing." See here

But the no-inch punch is a very simple example (though difficult to learn to coordinate with "expression") of releasing a poised torsional shear. See here again, if you have not already. The extension/contraction produced is described as asagao -- which is the opening/closing motion of the morning glory flower.

Stand easily facing a wall at arms length, feet square, palms up fingers extended and touch your middle finger to the wall. Now, press with your center to compress your arms without flexing anything. Now, turn your palms down without changing anything else. You will find that your arms have extended and your weight is now shifted back toward the heel of your foot. Keep turning the palms the same way until they face outboard to either side, you will find you are now rocked back almost entirely on your heels. Congratulations. You have just performed kokyu tanden ho on yourself by reflection against a wall and sheared yourself off your own support.

Now the no-inch punch does the same thing inversely, where you "throw" all of that shear (representing all the momentum of your body), rolled out into the torsional extension to the two square inches of the fist. It is the same thing as cracking a whip. It is the same thing in momentum (actual movement) affecting the dynamic stability of the opponent (or punching bag) that was expressed as a static shift of stability moment (potential movement) when you reflected yourself off your support using the wall.

And that would basically be the situation with your punching bag. But as Shaun suggests, living opponents are much more interesting. When a punch is delivered with a certain pulse rhythm (about 10hz -- also called furitama) it just happens to be the at resonance frequency of the human body. We know this because when you do furitama it bounces you on and off your heels -- that is resonance occurring. These shear mechanics naturally tend to find resonant rhythms.

The pulse thus delivered resonates to "rattle" his structure -- like a vibrating sandbox, it cannot create much reaction to the impact, nor support much of anything. The shear wave generated is fully and uncontrollably realized throughout his structure, finding any discontinuities in it (i.e - poised levers) and making them structurally unsound (and potentially damaging the structure -- for which reason it must be done with care). And for this reason, if done very correctly it "pops" his own protective reflexive actions into the bargain, to added effect.

Turning the situation around, conversely, in absorbing an arbitrary impact the same is true. As long as there are no discontinuities in the body other than the floor connection, and the body is primed to receive and allow an impact or input to flow through without much harm in this way, and either the flexible connections can reverse the wave through a 3D transform -- OR the floor discontinuity can be used to reflect it back out again. Either way, one can allow the shear to generate useful reflexive shear movements in your own body, thus capturing, reflecting or reversing, modulating that shear wave (and with perhaps some resonant additions) into the opponent who delivered it -- just as you used the wall to reflect your own action back into you.

O Sensei spoke of aikido techniques "as preparation to unlock and soften all joints of our body." I take it this particular point is among the jumping off points of Ellis's examination of what he deems 'hidden in plain sight." Shear is very much like that that, too, though I am sure he likely approaches it in very different terms.

Every joint is a system of levers and counter-levers. But every joint can also simply disregard the levers, and also be treated as a flexible, twisty, shear connection. In every lever, shear is unavoidably present, and shear provokes mechanical movement, but not by the use of the leverage, and antithetical to the leverage.

As with the shear collapse of the pencils, with some play these can be arbitrarily directed in surprisingly complex (and graceful) ways with the characteristic form of a harmonogram or Lissajous figure. Once the essential form is grasped, it can be arbitrarily compressed -- depending on the degree of sensitivity of the practitioner.

These things are skills and all interrelated (the ki skills). Together they form a coherent whole that is analogous to a "forest", for instance. Could you analyse each tree down to the xlyem and phloem and down to the molecules and atoms? Sure... but in that case you wouldn't be seeing the forest because of the trees. An apt analogy for your analyses, I think.

Only the forest matters if you are merely passing through -- but the trees matter if you are cutting them or planting them ...

Please consider making a youtube video of your shear explanation. If you could then show how that relates to tai no henka in the video it would be great but it'd appreciate just seeing a vid of the 2 pencil -contraption you described.

I'm a noob at the net + video, but there's an opportunity for something new. We'll see if I can do that.

I have personally been thrown in that exact way by that exact person in the first "in this" picture, and I can say without a doubt in my mind that while totally aweome and fun, it is NOT the *IT* we are talking about.

These things are skills and all interrelated (the ki skills). Together they form a coherent whole that is analogous to a "forest", for instance. Could you analyse each tree down to the xlyem and phloem and down to the molecules and atoms? Sure... but in that case you wouldn't be seeing the forest because of the trees. An apt analogy for your analyses, I think.

fwiw

Mike Sigman

If you are looking at the trees you are seeing the forest.

"As the geometrical structure of all things found in nature, fractals are self-repeating, irregular shapes. From the largest scale down to the smallest, the same basic shape can be found at all levels of magnification. Examples of fractals in nature include snowflakes, forests and coastlines; even the human DNA is constructed on the basis of this awe-inspiring geometry."

These things are skills and all interrelated (the ki skills). Together they form a coherent whole that is analogous to a "forest", for instance. Could you analyse each tree down to the xlyem and phloem and down to the molecules and atoms? Sure... but in that case you wouldn't be seeing the forest because of the trees. An apt analogy for your analyses, I think.

fwiw

Mike Sigman

I agree only if one simply stops at the analysis, but I get the impression Erick's analysis is intended to bounce back toward that synthesis of overarching understanding and application.
I'm guessing that describing "it" isn't required at all to learn how to perform it. With that in mind any general description might be deemed a distraction from the visceral lessons themselves (obviously guiding pointers and corrections help considerably). I think they can be useful and that different individuals will find insight in different models of explanation...that's my hunch, at any rate.

I agree only if one simply stops at the analysis, but I get the impression Erick's analysis is intended to bounce back toward that synthesis of overarching understanding and application.
I'm guessing that describing "it" isn't required at all to learn how to perform it. With that in mind any general description might be deemed a distraction from the visceral lessons themselves (obviously guiding pointers and corrections help considerably). I think they can be useful and that different individuals will find insight in different models of explanation...that's my hunch, at any rate.

This has been my issue with Erick's approach. To me, it only makes sense to go get first hand knowledge of what it is you are trying to analyze. Then he can be the objective source for describing what *IT* is that he is trying to reproduce by means of science... Before first hand experience, I just cannot see the point.

This has been my issue with Erick's approach. To me, it only makes sense to go get first hand knowledge of what it is you are trying to analyze. Then he can be the objective source for describing what *IT* is that he is trying to reproduce by means of science... Before first hand experience, I just cannot see the point.

Rob

That would seem to open up a question. If you start from looking at just aikido as it is now, however incomplete one wants to posit it being, if you take those situations from your practice where aikido worked, and beyond your level of understanding to really explain given the mechanics of aikido that are currently practiced... Is the assumption that if one goes back and analyzes these experiences, formulates a guess about what is going on, then extrapolates a new way of practicing and performing aikido based on this, that no useful stuff could arise? Stopped clock, twice a day; sunshine, dog's bottom; etc.

I think that is a useful assumption to clarify for a conversation like this. It seems like there is a certain body of experience we are positing as what is missing, a priori, such that without it, you could not identify something missing. But are there other experiences that one might have within their aikido practice that could bring on a similar conclusion of something being awry?

That would seem to open up a question. If you start from looking at just aikido as it is now, however incomplete one wants to posit it being, if you take those situations from your practice where aikido worked, and beyond your level of understanding to really explain given the mechanics of aikido that are currently practiced... Is the assumption that if one goes back and analyzes these experiences, formulates a guess about what is going on, then extrapolates a new way of practicing and performing aikido based on this, that no useful stuff could arise? Stopped clock, twice a day; sunshine, dog's bottom; etc.

I think that is a useful assumption to clarify for a conversation like this. It seems like there is a certain body of experience we are positing as what is missing, a priori, such that without it, you could not identify something missing. But are there other experiences that one might have within their aikido practice that could bring on a similar conclusion of something being awry?

Lee,

From my perspective, it continues to read that he is guessing about something he hasn't experienced. But maybe I'm missing the point.

Mary,

Which picture? And can you describe what about the picture looks to you like she is using a lot of muscle?

Now the no-inch punch does the same thing inversely, where you "throw" all of that shear (representing all the momentum of your body), rolled out into the torsional extension to the two square inches of the fist. It is the same thing as cracking a whip. It is the same thing in momentum (actual movement) affecting the dynamic stability of the opponent (or punching bag) that was expressed as a static shift of stability moment (potential movement) when you reflected yourself off your support using the wall.

And that would basically be the situation with your punching bag. But as Shaun suggests, living opponents are much more interesting. When a punch is delivered with a certain pulse rhythm (about 10hz -- also called furitama) it just happens to be the at resonance frequency of the human body. We know this because when you do furitama it bounces you on and off your heels -- that is resonance occurring. These shear mechanics naturally tend to find resonant rhythms.

Erick,

While this is an interesting theory as to what is going on, I am not too sure it actually relates to what I myself have seen and experienced. Kokyu-no-ho should be able to be demonstrated from any point on the body except two specific areas. This includes any point on the skin. This should also be able to be demonstrated by a person who is lying completely prone, either on their back or stomach. Meaning that someone who has mastery of Kokyu-no-ho can throw you from that position if you are touching any point on their body. Well, at least they were able to thrown me that way. They were also able to throw me along with seven other people who had contact along each limb, trunk, neck top of head... etc. in eight different directions at the same time. They also did this held up against a wall in similar fashion while their feet were off the floor...

I would be interested to know if you are able to construct a model for that. I do not want to see it, read it, hear about it... however, I am interested in your thoughts on it as a possible contrast to the ones you have been describing.

Best in training to you and all...

.

Last edited by Misogi-no-Gyo : 07-28-2009 at 02:38 PM.

I no longer participate in or read the discussion forums here on AikiWeb due to the unfair and uneven treatment of people by the owner/administrator.

I have personally been thrown in that exact way by that exact person in the first "in this" picture, and I can say without a doubt in my mind that while totally aweome and fun, it is NOT the *IT* we are talking about.

Rob

Totally agreed - see my post, above....

I no longer participate in or read the discussion forums here on AikiWeb due to the unfair and uneven treatment of people by the owner/administrator.

Would it? I think we really need to go back and consider what is special about the "no-inch punch" (that term drives me insane, really, it does!) and what, if anything, makes it applicable as what is "missing" from aikido.

The no-inch punch is not necessarily missing from aikido, although it would help to make those standing joint-locks more of a threat.
But the reason I mentioned the no-inch punch is that for what I would call a good definition of 'IT', you need to be able to explain both aiki and the no-inch punch with it. Of course, if you want to argue that aiki and the no-inch punch are not related, it becomes a different story.

Quote:

You've skipped all the skill and control required of those initial parts of just getting power to the target. It makes the concept of "short power" seem relatively mundane by comparison, no?

If you really think so, you should consider a career change and go teach all the boxers of the world this easier way of punching. I mean, it requires less skill, there's no telegraphing and you can punch harder from a clinch!

The no-inch punch is not necessarily missing from aikido, although it would help to make those standing joint-locks more of a threat.

Okay, but to what relevance? If we are solely going with power displayed over short distances, then certainly any movement, no less a joint lock, can be performed with more power by the very assumption that the practitioner, by definition, is more competent at exerting power over a short distance than he might be otherwise.

But... the ability to do this, the method to train to do this, or a particular explanation of how it is done (and there are many) does not necessarily mean "aiki".

Quote:

But the reason I mentioned the no-inch punch is that for what I would call a good definition of 'IT', you need to be able to explain both aiki and the no-inch punch with it. Of course, if you want to argue that aiki and the no-inch punch are not related, it becomes a different story.

I am not arguing that they are not related, just that knowing how to display power does not imply that ones knows "aiki". The opposite is also possible: that training "aiki" might not necessarily produce the same range of skills in striking over short distances as other disciplines with different methodologies of doing this.

Quote:

If you really think so, you should consider a career change and go teach all the boxers of the world this easier way of punching. I mean, it requires less skill, there's no telegraphing and you can punch harder from a clinch!

The point is not that competently displaying power over short ranges requires less skill than the disconnected way people might naturally punch. It certainly requires more training to achieve. The point is, rather, that if you are going to hold it up as an ultimate example of an awesome level of power, that it really isn't that at all relative to what is actually trained within the idea of striking power.

Hi Eric:
I don't see that in this. It looks like she is using a lot of muscle.
Mary

So you think her muscle ( I will read "leveraged lift") took him off the ground ?? Oh, say about 160-180 lbs at arms length? I mean he could be taking a dive, but It doesn't much look that way.

And in answer to Rob:

Quote:

Rob Liberti wrote:

I have personally been thrown in that exact way by that exact person in the first "in this" picture, and I can say without a doubt in my mind that while totally aweome and fun, it is NOT the *IT* we are talking about.

Well that is the problem with visual models isn't it. What struck me about that one was way his feet were carried up and out sideways. I could show you the two sticks and the motion -- but the sense of it would still not be shown, though some meager attempts as description of sensation might.

Why don't you try to describe what exactly about what she did to you actually made what is shown NOT "IT" in your terms.

To be clear, and so we are not doing any 'Alphonse/Gaston' routine -- if in the photo shown, she has "leaned into" that ikkyo (which is certainly possibly, but not necessarily, what is shown) or "pushed" out in a leveraged manner with the arm and shoulder, (which may also be possible from the photo) then I agree with you, at least on my terms that it is not "it" and involves no shear at all.

If on the other hand, she "sucked up" her base to enter under his cut (which the picture might allow did not happen) thus rising in contact with it and with an arm at fixed length and then extending (as I said before with the wall), then she sheared his cut upward (at the elbow) and sucked him off his feet and sideways doing it. Just like taking the refrigerator off the deck using the shear described earlier.

I have students do something similar against shinai and meeting the descending forward fist with the extended hand-- to teach the difference between blocking and connecting - the former gets you hit in the head, the latter gets you kuzushi on contact -- not usually so spectacularly --- but ....

To me that experience was all about leading people out. There is a lot of wonderful lessons about the nature of fire and water, where the fire hand leads out, and them the water hand follows behind applying weight. She wasn't discussing that, but that was my impression of the nature of the drill at the time. However, it wasn't like my experience of aiki-age.

David,

Sorry bud but I'm not buying what you are selling. "One of the reasons for this thread is for people to offer their definition ,by way of description if necessary, so that there can be a reasonable, objective discussion." I think that is what people constructively made out of it. I was actually shocked when you played what I will call your "shihan trump card" AS IF ALL of the people who are describing what they are finding outside of aikido to apply directly TO aikido all failed to do their due diligence. Then when things didn't go where you seemed to expect, you started another thread about: "What did O'Sensei's students want from him? A spiritual message or a martial ability?" Maybe I want to develop martial ability like the founder to help me develop my spiritual understanding - you know, like how the founder did it...
(Also, I did my best to describe how I determine who has IT - 2 times in this very thread.)

While this is an interesting theory as to what is going on, I am not too sure it actually relates to what I myself have seen and experienced. Kokyu-no-ho should be able to be demonstrated from any point on the body except two specific areas. This includes any point on the skin.

There is nothing says the examples given are exclusive, nor limited to the upper limbs or any limbs for that matter.

Quote:

Shaun Ravens wrote:

This should also be able to be demonstrated by a person who is lying completely prone, either on their back or stomach. Meaning that someone who has mastery of Kokyu-no-ho can throw you from that position if you are touching any point on their body. Well, at least they were able to thrown me that way.

I would not claim to do so from "any point of contact" on my body, but whatever part I happen to have connection with at the time of a throw I more often than not find something useful to do with it. It's funny you should say that about throwing from the ground -- several of our students "cordially dislike" for me to uke for them. They know to a man (or woman, Stan!) that if they have the slightest opening in the throw or lose zanshin in its completion, then I will usually take them as or after they "throw" me to the ground (maybe or maybe not throw them, depending on whether they have recognized their peril). One student threw me, and as he finished he said, "Ohhhh, You're gonna throw me ..!!!. I said, "Nope, because you finally realized I could." (N.B. -- We don't routinely throw in (the many) henka waza opportunities often presented, except at the "end" of the technique, so as to keep the isolated scheme of the presented waza intact for its intended learning purpose.)

Quote:

Shaun Ravens wrote:

They were also able to throw me along with seven other people who had contact along each limb, trunk, neck top of head... etc. in eight different directions at the same time. They also did this held up against a wall in similar fashion while their feet were off the floor...

That I do understand mechanically -- though we do not play with or practice such tricks -- The wall or the floor doesn't really matter. Held in mid-air doesn't really matter, just like pumping a swing, only somewhat easier because the "swing" is inverted, in compression, and thus very easily buckled by a shear. I have seen the video of those demos where the guy knocks down all those holding him bodily aloft.
It doesn't matter how many dominoes support a board -- two or a hundred -- they will all rack over in shear if you apply a shear (which is the same basic set up as the "jo trick," FWIW, only re-oriented)

That is unmistakeably the use of progressive or pulsed shear, like a whirlpool sucking all the water around and down - or water peeled off pavement by a wheel - or a wave sucking water off the beach and then crashing back. It can be a progressive spiral, in or out, or a pulsed wave, or a resonant spike of furitama or atemi in the same rhythm -- they are all mechanically equivalent as the shear goes -- though to different effect and perception.

Quote:

Shaun Ravens wrote:

I would be interested to know if you are able to construct a model for that.

This has been my issue with Erick's approach. To me, it only makes sense to go get first hand knowledge of what it is you are trying to analyze. Then he can be the objective source for describing what *IT* is that he is trying to reproduce by means of science... Before first hand experience, I just cannot see the point.

Rob

Assuming for the moment that he doesn't know much about what he's talking about, I can still see how thinking about how it might work in his own terms might still be somewhat useful to him. It might also simply be a fun thing for him to do. I know I personally enjoy attempting to articulate some of these things we do and I have barely any understanding at all...if I have any. I'm assuming at the worst he has very rudamentary understanding of some set of internal skills, but still that's something to work with.
My thinking is that it's one thing to say someone hasn't developed the ability to use many of these skills, but it's different to say the description isn't accurate. If it isn't accurate, shouldn't one with true understanding be able to describe how it falls short? Mike's point about mechanical language being able to describe any kind of movement is a good one, but that still doesn't mean it's necessarily meaningless. Ki is often described as meaningless because it can be a catchall term, but it still can have its usefulness.
I guess it just seems to me that if I assume Erick has any understanding, he has a place to begin basing his descriptions. It may be incomplete or have some areas where it doesn't lend itself well, but if the mechanical terminology fits (and I don't see how it couldn't) and he's using it correctly, I don't get the gripe. I would think that would be the point at which people with more understanding of "it" might be able to sharpen the resolution, using his terms to teach him a better concept. I have no idea how good at "it" he is...or even necessarily what "it" is, outside of what's practiced at my dojo...slight though my experience there is too.
I would agree that if Erick wants to be certain of describing what is done by Dan and Mike, etc., the best thing to do is to experience it to some significant degree. Still, to my mind, unless there are false claims, in the realm of words, actual skill in production is almost meaningless. If Dan and Mike's terminology is accurate, and I parrot them to describe what's describable, my ability still has nothing to do with speaking correctly. Sure you can question if I can walk the talk, but in this forum where describing "it" is concerned, what ultimately matters is if I can talk the talk.
Is it practical to the learning itself? I couldn't say. I suspect it can help at least a little though. It could probably hurt too: it's all in how it's applied...just as Mike pointed out that knowing one or two "tricks" can keep a person from realizing a grander potential because they think those are it when in reality they're just the tip of the iceberg.
I hope that was cogent...I've been back and forth between the baby and the pc so it might be a little all over the road; if it is, sorry for that.
Take care,
Matt

Sorry bud but I'm not buying what you are selling. "One of the reasons for this thread is for people to offer their definition ,by way of description if necessary, so that there can be a reasonable, objective discussion." I think that is what people constructively made out of it. I was actually shocked when you played what I will call your "shihan trump card" AS IF ALL of the people who are describing what they are finding outside of aikido to apply directly TO aikido all failed to do their due diligence. Then when things didn't go where you seemed to expect, you started another thread about: "What did O'Sensei's students want from him? A spiritual message or a martial ability?"

Actually the "What did O'Sensei's students want from him? A spiritual message or a martial ability?" thread was started 07-12-2009, 04:23 PM.
This thread was started 07-20-2009, 07:00 AM.
One thread had nothing to do with the other.

Well David, I certainly got the sequence wrong. I stand corrected on that for sure and I apologize. Both threads seem to have a common theme of something like "is there an IT that aikido is missing at all?" - with a hint of "is complacency in terms of developing aiki justified?" But maybe I got that wrong too. I can say that Dan posts some compelling things about aiki. I posted a list of skills I found valuable that no one in aikido is claiming (to my knowledge) except maybe O-sensei and a few of his early deshi.

So the original post was do the other braches of aikido also feel that something is missing like the aikikai. It presupposes that the aikikia feels that something is missing and I doubt the vast majority of the aikikai or of any other aikido branch feel that way. But this thread was a good place to discuss what the buzz about IT is. Everyone posting here loves aikido. Some love what it has been to them, others love what it had been and want it to be again. So with all this passion, there is going to be some rough waters.

Matthew, "If it isn't accurate, shouldn't one with true understanding be able to describe how it falls short?" It has to be felt is what everyone with true understanding (demonstrate-able skils) continues to say thus far.

I think Erick describes the shear of that cool shoto-ikkyo just fine. I just know that is not aiki-age. The technique in that picture is remarkably more external.

With Ericks approach, I can try to make an analogy. It seems like someone who has never seen a Mac is trying to describe a PC at the chip and operating system design level and asking me to explain the differences at that level. I don't know every detail of how my computer works, but I can use it well enough. I don't think knowing the differences on that level would help all that much. Maybe it is not a perfect analogy. But in general, I think such an approach belongs in a different thread so it does not lead the people interested in IT astray. There is little hope of re-engineering IT from the position of doubtfully ever having felt/experienced it.